Central Information Commission
Govind Narayan vs Department Of Telecommunications on 20 June, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DOTEL/A/2023/118170.
Shri Govind Narayan ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Centre for Development of Telematics ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 19.06.2024
Date of Decision : 19.06.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24.11.2022
PIO replied on : 16.03.2023
First Appeal filed on : 14.02.2023
First Appellate Order on : NA
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 25.04.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.11.2022 seeking information on the following points:-
"1. Kindly provide the copy of the agreement regarding photocopy contract executed between M/s Zerox Technologies and C-DOT.
2. Kindly provide the duration of the above mentioned contract i.e. photocopy contract executed between M/s Zerox Technologies and C-DOT.
3. Kindly provide all past paid bills of M/s Zerox Technologies with bill processing sheet and supporting documents i.e. request vouchers duly signed by C-DOT employees.
4. Kindly provide statement of accounts i.e. Ledger sheet with C-DOT finance department, month wise payment made to M/s Zerox Technology, during contract between M/s Zerox Technologies and C-DOT."
The CPIO vide letter dated 16.03.2023 replied as under:-
"The requested information cannot be shared with you as the same pertains to confidential information of the Organization. The same forms a part of trade secrets and business strategies of the Organization. The Organization is exempted under section 8(1) of the RTI Act 2005 from providing the requested information.Page 1 of 3
..Thus, the information sough under RTIs dated 24.11.2002 and 25.11.2022 cannot be provided as the same are exempted under sub clauses of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act 2005"
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.02.2023 which was not adjudicated by the FAA.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Appellant: Present after the hearing Respondent: Ms. Akshita Gupta - Authorised Representative, Executive Legal and Shri Shyam Kishore Maurya - Advocate Respondent present for hearing stated that information sought related to confidential information of M/s Zerox Technologies, which forms a part of trade secrets and business strategies of the Organization. Hence the information could not be divulged by the Respondent.
The Appellant appeared after the hearing and contended that he wanted to unravel corrupt practices in the Respondent public authority and hence sought the aforementioned information. He elaborated that in order to prove that Respondent was paying bogus bills on photocopy, he wanted to obtain the aforementioned information.
Decision:
After hearing averments of both parties, it is noted that information about agreement regarding photocopy contract executed between M/s Zerox Technologies and C-DOT is barred from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, since it is likely to hold confidential information of the Organization, forming part of trade secrets and business strategies of the said Organization. Hence denial of information by the Respondent was justified. However, the Respondent erred in not clearly stating the ground for denial of information and citing the appropriate provisions of law.
On the other hand, information about duration of the contract as sought in query number 2 is only a numeric data and as such there appears nothing confidential about it. Likewise, it is not clear whether information about the queries raised at point number 3 and 4 are indeed exempt under the RTI Act, and if so, why are they exempt from disclosure in public domain. It is also noted that the First Appeal filed in this case was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority. Hence, the Commission deems it appropriate to remand the appeal to the FAA, Centre for Development of Telematics to adjudicate the matter, particularly the points 2 to 4 ensure and pass a reasoned speaking order after hearing both the parties. The Respondent shall ensure that the aforementioned direction is duly complied with Page 2 of 3 and a report in the form of reasoned speaking order of the FAA is submitted before the Commission within four weeks of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed with these directions.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)